By Sara McCorquodale
Baby boys born to mothers exposed to hairspray may not have a higher risk of having a genital defect, the leader of an alarming study published this week has said.
Research revealed working regularly in an atmosphere where the styling product was used frequently while pregnant could lead to hypospadias, it was reported.
However, Professor Paul Elliot who commandeered the study has clarified the chemical they believed to be harmful to male foetuses has not been used in the product since 2005, due to amended European Union regulations.
The Imperial College scientist, along with his team, found evidence suggesting phthalates could lead to the condition which results in the urinary tract being positioned away from the tips of the glans of the penis.
In the study, 471 women who gave birth to babies with hypospadias between 1997 and 1998 were interviewed alongside a group of the same number who gave birth to children without the defect.
Approximately double in the former set revealed they had been exposed to hairspray during their pregnancy.
While the chemical thought to be harmful is not in the product anymore, Professor Elliot still advises pregnant women to stay away from the aerosol styler.
He said: “We need to understand more about the chemicals in this product. For that reason, I would still say it is probably wise for expectant mothers to minimise their exposure to the product, particularly in early pregnancy. It is just part of maintaining good health while pregnant.
The EU regulations mean the phthalates we have concerns about have been removed from the product but I still believe protection should be taken.”
Habia’s health and safety department advises managers of salons using hairspray to undertake risk assessments for pregnant staff on site.
Source: Professional Beauty 28 Nov
I need to get some Natural Hairspray Now!
Saturday, December 13, 2008
Monday, December 08, 2008
Salon owners face jail if they continue selling Melanotan
By Sara McCorquodale
Salon owners who continue to sell an unlicensed tanning product could face two years in prison, a government watchdog has warned.
Following reports that injectable tan stimulator, Melanotan, is being retailed online and by salons and gyms across the UK, the Medicines and Healthcare Regulatory Agency (MHRA) has ordered vendors to remove the product from their shelves and websites. However, if they do not follow these instructions they could face a fine or worse. A spokesperson from the agency said: “If those selling the product continue we have the power under the Medicines Act to take action. We could prosecute them and they could end up spending two years in jail or receive an unlimited fine.”
The product contains a hormone that induces skin cells to produce more melanin but due to lack of research into its effects, Melanotan is currently unlicensed in the UK. The MHRA spokesperson said: “It shouldn’t be used because it has not gone through proper checks. We don’t know how safe it is, whether the manufacturer has good standards for production or even if it works.
She explained: "We don’t have any clinical data to show the short and long-term side effects. All we have is anecdotal evidence that the compound may increase the libido and therefore may raise the blood pressure. It also may suppress the appetite – we just don’t know. Very often the product is sold in powder form, which users need to mix with sterilised water, but this is prescription-only so we have serious safety concerns over this aspect of Melanotan too.”
Despite the negative press the Melanotan debacle has generated towards the tanning industry, Fake Bake owner Sandra McClumpha believes it will not do businesses selling legitimate products any harm. She said: “Something that is taken internally is potentially dangerous and has nothing to do with self-tanning products that are actually applied on the skin.
“No-one should inject themselves unless authorised by a doctor with anything, never mind a product not approved in this country. The salons that have been selling this illegal product should stop immediately. They have obviously been mis-informed but they have to realise the dangerous effects of this product and the damage that they can do to the reputation of their business.”
Source: Professional Beauty
We Say: Again more worrying links with your health, if you want a healthy tan, why not go for a natural self tanning lotion.
Salon owners who continue to sell an unlicensed tanning product could face two years in prison, a government watchdog has warned.
Following reports that injectable tan stimulator, Melanotan, is being retailed online and by salons and gyms across the UK, the Medicines and Healthcare Regulatory Agency (MHRA) has ordered vendors to remove the product from their shelves and websites. However, if they do not follow these instructions they could face a fine or worse. A spokesperson from the agency said: “If those selling the product continue we have the power under the Medicines Act to take action. We could prosecute them and they could end up spending two years in jail or receive an unlimited fine.”
The product contains a hormone that induces skin cells to produce more melanin but due to lack of research into its effects, Melanotan is currently unlicensed in the UK. The MHRA spokesperson said: “It shouldn’t be used because it has not gone through proper checks. We don’t know how safe it is, whether the manufacturer has good standards for production or even if it works.
She explained: "We don’t have any clinical data to show the short and long-term side effects. All we have is anecdotal evidence that the compound may increase the libido and therefore may raise the blood pressure. It also may suppress the appetite – we just don’t know. Very often the product is sold in powder form, which users need to mix with sterilised water, but this is prescription-only so we have serious safety concerns over this aspect of Melanotan too.”
Despite the negative press the Melanotan debacle has generated towards the tanning industry, Fake Bake owner Sandra McClumpha believes it will not do businesses selling legitimate products any harm. She said: “Something that is taken internally is potentially dangerous and has nothing to do with self-tanning products that are actually applied on the skin.
“No-one should inject themselves unless authorised by a doctor with anything, never mind a product not approved in this country. The salons that have been selling this illegal product should stop immediately. They have obviously been mis-informed but they have to realise the dangerous effects of this product and the damage that they can do to the reputation of their business.”
Source: Professional Beauty
We Say: Again more worrying links with your health, if you want a healthy tan, why not go for a natural self tanning lotion.
Industry backs nano-cosmetics
13 Nov 2008
By Sophie Blakemore
The beauty industry has defended the use of nanotechnology in the manufacture of cosmetics after its safety was called into question by a consumer watchdog.
A report published by Which? said “nano” particles were widely used in cosmetic products, such as anti-wrinkle creams and sunscreens, despite uncertainties about customer safety.Small Wonder? Nanotechnology and Cosmetics called for more research and tirals to be introduced, and for manufacturers to be obligated to clearly state which products use nano materials.
Nanotechnology manipulates atoms and molecules on a very small scale, more than 50,000 times smaller than the width of a human hair, to enable them to take on new properties.Many brands were cited in the report for their use of nanotechnology, including Agera skincare, which uses it to deliver peptides into the skin.
But Dr Mervyn Patterson, medical director of Eden Aesthetics, which distributes Agera in the UK, said many cosmetics using nano materials were subjected to greater tests than the “crude techniques” other products went through. “Agera has spent a decade researching this technology and the nano materials used in its products are tested on human skin cells in the lab and then the final product itself is tested again to ensure safety. I really don’t know what the fuss is about – you can never say something is 100% reaction-free but we are confident in the safety and benefits of our products.”
The Cosmetic, Toiletry and Perfumery Association (CTPA) said the cosmetics industry took its legal responsibility to supply only safe products very seriously. “Each and every cosmetic product supplied in the EU must have a rigorous safety assessment... taking into account every aspect of its manufacture, including size,” a spokesman said. “We are disappointed that Which? feels the stringent EU rules surrounding the manufacture and safety assessment of cosmetics are somehow not robust.”
However, chief policy advisor at Which? Sue Davies said although many nanotechnology applications could lead to revolutionary developments in cosmetics, until safety checks were obligatory “the simple fact is we just don’t know enough. The government must introduce a compulsory reporting scheme for manufactured nano materials so we are all aware – and only those that are independently assessed as safe should be allowed to be used in cosmetics,” she said.
The CTPA said it was working with cosmetics companies, European trade associations and the regulatory authorities to ensure comprehensive regulation of all cosmetic products.
Source: Professional Beauty
We Say: It is clear that more tests are required to prove the safety of nano-cosmetics and we may never know the full extent of what effect they have, so why risk it, when there are so many great alternatives on the market.
http://www.lucyrose.biz/
By Sophie Blakemore
The beauty industry has defended the use of nanotechnology in the manufacture of cosmetics after its safety was called into question by a consumer watchdog.
A report published by Which? said “nano” particles were widely used in cosmetic products, such as anti-wrinkle creams and sunscreens, despite uncertainties about customer safety.Small Wonder? Nanotechnology and Cosmetics called for more research and tirals to be introduced, and for manufacturers to be obligated to clearly state which products use nano materials.
Nanotechnology manipulates atoms and molecules on a very small scale, more than 50,000 times smaller than the width of a human hair, to enable them to take on new properties.Many brands were cited in the report for their use of nanotechnology, including Agera skincare, which uses it to deliver peptides into the skin.
But Dr Mervyn Patterson, medical director of Eden Aesthetics, which distributes Agera in the UK, said many cosmetics using nano materials were subjected to greater tests than the “crude techniques” other products went through. “Agera has spent a decade researching this technology and the nano materials used in its products are tested on human skin cells in the lab and then the final product itself is tested again to ensure safety. I really don’t know what the fuss is about – you can never say something is 100% reaction-free but we are confident in the safety and benefits of our products.”
The Cosmetic, Toiletry and Perfumery Association (CTPA) said the cosmetics industry took its legal responsibility to supply only safe products very seriously. “Each and every cosmetic product supplied in the EU must have a rigorous safety assessment... taking into account every aspect of its manufacture, including size,” a spokesman said. “We are disappointed that Which? feels the stringent EU rules surrounding the manufacture and safety assessment of cosmetics are somehow not robust.”
However, chief policy advisor at Which? Sue Davies said although many nanotechnology applications could lead to revolutionary developments in cosmetics, until safety checks were obligatory “the simple fact is we just don’t know enough. The government must introduce a compulsory reporting scheme for manufactured nano materials so we are all aware – and only those that are independently assessed as safe should be allowed to be used in cosmetics,” she said.
The CTPA said it was working with cosmetics companies, European trade associations and the regulatory authorities to ensure comprehensive regulation of all cosmetic products.
Source: Professional Beauty
We Say: It is clear that more tests are required to prove the safety of nano-cosmetics and we may never know the full extent of what effect they have, so why risk it, when there are so many great alternatives on the market.
http://www.lucyrose.biz/
Tuesday, November 18, 2008
Nano Particles In Cosmetics
Cosmetics companies are not taking sufficient steps to ensure cosmetic products containing nanoparticles are safe, according to the recent Which? report.
Of 67 firms approached, only eight submitted information on their use of nanotechnology. A common use of nanotechnology is in the addition of titanium dioxide or zinc oxide particles to sun screens. European experts have demanded more safety tests to investigate the effects of these on damaged skin, according to the Guardian.
Safety concerns over nanoparticles in cosmetics have already been raised by the Royal Society earlier. It called for independent safety assessments on all products containing nanoparticles. The society has also urged firms to declare their safety tests.
According to the chief policy advisor at Which?, the cosmetics industry needed to declare about how it was using nanotechnology. The government would have to introduce a compulsory reporting scheme for manufactured nanomaterials, and only those that were independently assessed as safe should be allowed to be used in cosmetics.
http://www.guardian.co.uk
17.11.2008
Of 67 firms approached, only eight submitted information on their use of nanotechnology. A common use of nanotechnology is in the addition of titanium dioxide or zinc oxide particles to sun screens. European experts have demanded more safety tests to investigate the effects of these on damaged skin, according to the Guardian.
Safety concerns over nanoparticles in cosmetics have already been raised by the Royal Society earlier. It called for independent safety assessments on all products containing nanoparticles. The society has also urged firms to declare their safety tests.
According to the chief policy advisor at Which?, the cosmetics industry needed to declare about how it was using nanotechnology. The government would have to introduce a compulsory reporting scheme for manufactured nanomaterials, and only those that were independently assessed as safe should be allowed to be used in cosmetics.
http://www.guardian.co.uk
17.11.2008
Thursday, September 04, 2008
Natural Sanitary Protection
Ladies, is your choice of sanitary protection affecting your health?
Whilst your period is an inevitable part of your life and not something you would choose to have each month, the sanitary protection you use is within your control. The unquestioned choice for the vast majority of women in the UK is to use either tampons or sanitary towels. In fact, we buy more than 3 billion disposable sanitary protection items each year, which are being flushed away adding to marine pollution or dumped in landfill sites. The environmental costs are clearly a concern, but have you considered how safe they are to use?
The main areas of concern are:
Dioxin is a potentially harmful byproduct of the chlorine bleaching process used in the wood pulp industry, which includes the manufacture of sanitary towels and tampons. Evidence is growing that even low levels of dioxin may be linked to breast cancer, cancer, endometriosis and immune system suppression.
Surfactants (additives used in tampons to increase absorbency) and fragrances may pose additional unnecessary health risks in feminine hygiene products.
Toxic Shock Syndrome (TSS) is a rare bacterial condition with up to 20 confirmed cases in Britain each year. Tampons (particularly high absorbency ones) may facilitate the infection because their use may cause lacerations and ulcerations of the vaginal wall. In fact half of all cases occur in menstruating women who are using high absorbency tampons.
However, there is another more modern form of sanitary protection that thousands of women all over the World are now choosing to use:
Femmecup® menstrual cup is a reusable alternative to tampons. It is a small bell shaped menstrual cup worn internally during your period. It is very soft and made from approved medical grade silicone. Unlike a tampon it collects the flow instead of absorbing it.
Femmecup contains no harmful chemicals, bleaches, fibres or perfumes and does not cause dryness.
One Femmecup lasts for years; produces no waste and saves you lots of money aswell.
Femmecup has never been linked with TSS and is discreet, comfortable and easy to use. It can be worn for up to 12 hours, overnight and whilst swimming and playing sports.
Find out more about the future of feminine hygiene at http://www.femmecup.com/
Whilst your period is an inevitable part of your life and not something you would choose to have each month, the sanitary protection you use is within your control. The unquestioned choice for the vast majority of women in the UK is to use either tampons or sanitary towels. In fact, we buy more than 3 billion disposable sanitary protection items each year, which are being flushed away adding to marine pollution or dumped in landfill sites. The environmental costs are clearly a concern, but have you considered how safe they are to use?
The main areas of concern are:
Dioxin is a potentially harmful byproduct of the chlorine bleaching process used in the wood pulp industry, which includes the manufacture of sanitary towels and tampons. Evidence is growing that even low levels of dioxin may be linked to breast cancer, cancer, endometriosis and immune system suppression.
Surfactants (additives used in tampons to increase absorbency) and fragrances may pose additional unnecessary health risks in feminine hygiene products.
Toxic Shock Syndrome (TSS) is a rare bacterial condition with up to 20 confirmed cases in Britain each year. Tampons (particularly high absorbency ones) may facilitate the infection because their use may cause lacerations and ulcerations of the vaginal wall. In fact half of all cases occur in menstruating women who are using high absorbency tampons.
However, there is another more modern form of sanitary protection that thousands of women all over the World are now choosing to use:
Femmecup® menstrual cup is a reusable alternative to tampons. It is a small bell shaped menstrual cup worn internally during your period. It is very soft and made from approved medical grade silicone. Unlike a tampon it collects the flow instead of absorbing it.
Femmecup contains no harmful chemicals, bleaches, fibres or perfumes and does not cause dryness.
One Femmecup lasts for years; produces no waste and saves you lots of money aswell.
Femmecup has never been linked with TSS and is discreet, comfortable and easy to use. It can be worn for up to 12 hours, overnight and whilst swimming and playing sports.
Find out more about the future of feminine hygiene at http://www.femmecup.com/
Friday, August 01, 2008
Behind the Label: Lynx Dry Antiperspirant Deodorant
Whether you regularly use a stick, solid or spray anti-perspirant/deodorant, the chances are that it contains a cocktail of chemicals that can lead to mental decline, migraine, and breast cancer.
Through clever marketing Lynx anti-perspirant/deodorant promises much more than dry, sweet smelling pits. On the long-held advertising premise that you can sell anything to a man if you can link it to sex or sport, this product promises amazing success in both areas.
Lynx was first launched as a men’s body spray in 1985 and the range has since expanded to include anti-perspirant/deodorants, shower gels, hair care and skincare. The brand maintains pole position in the marketplace by reinventing itself each year with a new fragrance variant and new advertising celebrating the urban legend known as the ‘Lynx effect’.
The concept of the Lynx effect – underarm dryness and a date on Saturday night – has proved very seductive, especially among younger men. This is all the more amazing considering that underneath it all Lynx is a fairly bog standard anti-perspirant/deodorant. While antiperspirants don’t usually contain the laundry list of ingredients that other toiletries (such as shampoos) do, the few ingredients they do contain are worrying and include neurotoxic solvents, toxic metals and potential carcinogens.
Lynx is produced by Lever Fabergé, the UK arm of consumer goods giant Unilever. In the UK deodorants and body sprays are now worth over £400 million a year in total sales. Lever Fabergé’s share of the deodorants and body sprays market stands at a whopping 54 per cent – over three times greater than its nearest competitor. Sales of Lynx make up the greater proportion of this along with Impulse, Sure and Vaseline Intensive Care.
Today Lynx is the UK’s biggest male toiletries brand, accounting for around 35 per cent of all male toiletries sold in this country. It is used by 60 per cent of all boys aged 16 or under. Indeed, half of all users are under 24 and a further quarter are aged 25 to 44. Lynx, which is known in other countries as AXE, can also claim to be the world’s biggest selling men’s deodorant.
Ingredients:
Butane, Isobutane and Propane: Propellants.
Health effects: Headache; breathing difficulties; mood swings; nausea, vomiting, dizziness; symptoms of drunkenness; high doses can cause convulsions and coma; symptoms of mild frostbite (numbness, prickling and itching under the arm) are also possible. These highly flammable volatile organic chemicals (VOCs) are popular with solvent abusers (note the warning on the can) because they produce a quick ‘high’ – however they can also produce quick death. VOCs also accumulate in human breast milk. While these particular propellants don’t destroy the earth’s ozone shield, they do contribute to the formation of ground level ozone, or smog, which can cause serious breathing problems.
Aluminium zirconium tetrachlorohydrex GLY. Aluminium chlorohydrate: Clogs pores to prevent sweat leaking through.
Health Effects: Skin irritation; mental decline. Aluminium is absorbed through the skin and there is evidence that a lifetime’s use of aluminium-containing deodorants may lead to the development of Alzheimer’s disease. Can cause cancer - In women, a combination of underarm shaving and aluminium containing deodorants has been linked to breast cancer. Aluminium salts are also linked to an increase in male breast cancer. This may be because they damage the DNA of breast cells and have a potential hormone disrupting effect. Spray formulations mean you inhale, as well as absorb these compounds. Inhaled aluminium has fairly direct access to the brain via the nasal passages and chronic occupational exposure has been associated with preclinical signs of Alzheimer’s.
14 butyl ether: Preservative, solvent, antibacterial.
Health effects: Skin irritant, neurotoxin. PPG-14 butyl ether is a relative of propylene glycol and potentially toxic to the kidneys and liver. In the US it is a pesticide component used in sprays to protect animals from flies, gnats and mosquitoes. It is poisonous in high concentrations and can enhance the skin penetration of other more toxic chemicals.
Alcohol: Emollient, moisturiser, stabiliser.
Health effects: can cause allergies or contact dermatitis.
BHT – butylated hydroxytoluene: Antioxidant.
Health Effects: Contact allergies/contact dermatitis. Cancer suspect. May cause reproductive defects. Once absorbed, BHT can accelerate the breakdown of vital nutrients such as vitamin D (which maintains immunity and healthy bones and teeth).
Parfum (Synthetic): Body odour mask.
Health effects: Skin irritation, allergic reaction; breathing difficulties (including asthma); headache (including migraine; dizziness, nausea. ‘Parfum’ is a collective name given to hundreds of different chemicals used to produce a fragrance in cosmetics and toiletries. Many of these chemicals are persistent (ie, they don’t break down in the environment and they accumulate in human tissue and breastmilk). Of the top 20 most common perfume ingredients, four – acetone, ethanol, ethyl acetate and methylene chloride – are classified as hazardous waste by the EPA. Other commonly-used chemicals in perfume include propylene glycol (see PPG-14 above); cyclohexanol, a central nervous system depressant; linalool, which can provoke depression, loss of equilibrium and respiratory disturbances; methyl ethyl ketone, toxic to liver and kidneys, irritating to eyes, nose, and throat; and formaldehyde, a known carcinogen. Spray formulations mean you – and those around you – inhale more of these toxic chemicals.
Distearate: Moisturiser, emulsifier, emollient and antioxidant. Adding PEG to a product will prevent moisture loss during storage. The lower the number the more liquid the product is.
Health effects: cancer – Polyethylene glycol (PEG) compounds can be contaminated with various carcinogens, including ethylene oxide, 1,4-dioxane and polycyclic aromatic compounds (including benzene, benz(a)pyrene, DMBA, and 1-nitropyrene) – potential breast cancer triggers. Neurotoxic - PEGs can be contaminated with heavy metals such as lead, iron, cobalt, nickel, cadmium, and arsenic, which are toxic to the central nervous system.
(Source: Ecologist - Pat Thomas)
To find organic and natural deodorant alternatives free from these toxi chemicals click here
Through clever marketing Lynx anti-perspirant/deodorant promises much more than dry, sweet smelling pits. On the long-held advertising premise that you can sell anything to a man if you can link it to sex or sport, this product promises amazing success in both areas.
Lynx was first launched as a men’s body spray in 1985 and the range has since expanded to include anti-perspirant/deodorants, shower gels, hair care and skincare. The brand maintains pole position in the marketplace by reinventing itself each year with a new fragrance variant and new advertising celebrating the urban legend known as the ‘Lynx effect’.
The concept of the Lynx effect – underarm dryness and a date on Saturday night – has proved very seductive, especially among younger men. This is all the more amazing considering that underneath it all Lynx is a fairly bog standard anti-perspirant/deodorant. While antiperspirants don’t usually contain the laundry list of ingredients that other toiletries (such as shampoos) do, the few ingredients they do contain are worrying and include neurotoxic solvents, toxic metals and potential carcinogens.
Lynx is produced by Lever Fabergé, the UK arm of consumer goods giant Unilever. In the UK deodorants and body sprays are now worth over £400 million a year in total sales. Lever Fabergé’s share of the deodorants and body sprays market stands at a whopping 54 per cent – over three times greater than its nearest competitor. Sales of Lynx make up the greater proportion of this along with Impulse, Sure and Vaseline Intensive Care.
Today Lynx is the UK’s biggest male toiletries brand, accounting for around 35 per cent of all male toiletries sold in this country. It is used by 60 per cent of all boys aged 16 or under. Indeed, half of all users are under 24 and a further quarter are aged 25 to 44. Lynx, which is known in other countries as AXE, can also claim to be the world’s biggest selling men’s deodorant.
Ingredients:
Butane, Isobutane and Propane: Propellants.
Health effects: Headache; breathing difficulties; mood swings; nausea, vomiting, dizziness; symptoms of drunkenness; high doses can cause convulsions and coma; symptoms of mild frostbite (numbness, prickling and itching under the arm) are also possible. These highly flammable volatile organic chemicals (VOCs) are popular with solvent abusers (note the warning on the can) because they produce a quick ‘high’ – however they can also produce quick death. VOCs also accumulate in human breast milk. While these particular propellants don’t destroy the earth’s ozone shield, they do contribute to the formation of ground level ozone, or smog, which can cause serious breathing problems.
Aluminium zirconium tetrachlorohydrex GLY. Aluminium chlorohydrate: Clogs pores to prevent sweat leaking through.
Health Effects: Skin irritation; mental decline. Aluminium is absorbed through the skin and there is evidence that a lifetime’s use of aluminium-containing deodorants may lead to the development of Alzheimer’s disease. Can cause cancer - In women, a combination of underarm shaving and aluminium containing deodorants has been linked to breast cancer. Aluminium salts are also linked to an increase in male breast cancer. This may be because they damage the DNA of breast cells and have a potential hormone disrupting effect. Spray formulations mean you inhale, as well as absorb these compounds. Inhaled aluminium has fairly direct access to the brain via the nasal passages and chronic occupational exposure has been associated with preclinical signs of Alzheimer’s.
14 butyl ether: Preservative, solvent, antibacterial.
Health effects: Skin irritant, neurotoxin. PPG-14 butyl ether is a relative of propylene glycol and potentially toxic to the kidneys and liver. In the US it is a pesticide component used in sprays to protect animals from flies, gnats and mosquitoes. It is poisonous in high concentrations and can enhance the skin penetration of other more toxic chemicals.
Alcohol: Emollient, moisturiser, stabiliser.
Health effects: can cause allergies or contact dermatitis.
BHT – butylated hydroxytoluene: Antioxidant.
Health Effects: Contact allergies/contact dermatitis. Cancer suspect. May cause reproductive defects. Once absorbed, BHT can accelerate the breakdown of vital nutrients such as vitamin D (which maintains immunity and healthy bones and teeth).
Parfum (Synthetic): Body odour mask.
Health effects: Skin irritation, allergic reaction; breathing difficulties (including asthma); headache (including migraine; dizziness, nausea. ‘Parfum’ is a collective name given to hundreds of different chemicals used to produce a fragrance in cosmetics and toiletries. Many of these chemicals are persistent (ie, they don’t break down in the environment and they accumulate in human tissue and breastmilk). Of the top 20 most common perfume ingredients, four – acetone, ethanol, ethyl acetate and methylene chloride – are classified as hazardous waste by the EPA. Other commonly-used chemicals in perfume include propylene glycol (see PPG-14 above); cyclohexanol, a central nervous system depressant; linalool, which can provoke depression, loss of equilibrium and respiratory disturbances; methyl ethyl ketone, toxic to liver and kidneys, irritating to eyes, nose, and throat; and formaldehyde, a known carcinogen. Spray formulations mean you – and those around you – inhale more of these toxic chemicals.
Distearate: Moisturiser, emulsifier, emollient and antioxidant. Adding PEG to a product will prevent moisture loss during storage. The lower the number the more liquid the product is.
Health effects: cancer – Polyethylene glycol (PEG) compounds can be contaminated with various carcinogens, including ethylene oxide, 1,4-dioxane and polycyclic aromatic compounds (including benzene, benz(a)pyrene, DMBA, and 1-nitropyrene) – potential breast cancer triggers. Neurotoxic - PEGs can be contaminated with heavy metals such as lead, iron, cobalt, nickel, cadmium, and arsenic, which are toxic to the central nervous system.
(Source: Ecologist - Pat Thomas)
To find organic and natural deodorant alternatives free from these toxi chemicals click here
Tuesday, June 10, 2008
Summer Sun Protection
Choosing the Right SPF
SPF stands for Sun Protection Factor. The higher the SPF number, the better protection against the sun's harmful UVB rays.
The SPF number lets you know how much longer you can stay out of the sun without burning. For example, if it takes 15 minutes for a person to burn, an SPF 15 will allow them to stay out in the sun 15 times longer without burning.
The American Academy of Dermatology recommends wearing an SPF of 15 or higher for maximum protection. SPF is available in factors from 2-60. Does highest mean the best protection? Not necessarily. An SPF of 50 only provides 1-2% more protection than an SPF30.
UVA and UVB Protection
The label of the sunscreen will indicate the UVA or UVB protection. UVA rays are responsible for the aging effect of the sun. However, overexposure to UVA rays can cause skin cancer.UVB rays are responsible for sunburns and skin cancer. Choose a product that has states "UVA/UVB" protection or has "broad spectrum" protectant.
Waterproof vs Water Resistant
If you are looking for a sunscreen to use while in the water, choose a sunscreen that is "waterproof" or "water resistant"."Waterproof" sunscreen should provide protection in the water for 80 minutes, while "water resistant" provides only 40 minutes of protection.
Visit http://www.lucyrose.biz/organic--natural-suncare-32-c.asp for a great selection of effective natural sun care.
SourceU. S. Food and Drug Administration. Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition Office of Cosmetics and Colors Fact Sheet June 27, 2000; Sunscreens, Tanning Products, and Sun Safety
SPF stands for Sun Protection Factor. The higher the SPF number, the better protection against the sun's harmful UVB rays.
The SPF number lets you know how much longer you can stay out of the sun without burning. For example, if it takes 15 minutes for a person to burn, an SPF 15 will allow them to stay out in the sun 15 times longer without burning.
The American Academy of Dermatology recommends wearing an SPF of 15 or higher for maximum protection. SPF is available in factors from 2-60. Does highest mean the best protection? Not necessarily. An SPF of 50 only provides 1-2% more protection than an SPF30.
UVA and UVB Protection
The label of the sunscreen will indicate the UVA or UVB protection. UVA rays are responsible for the aging effect of the sun. However, overexposure to UVA rays can cause skin cancer.UVB rays are responsible for sunburns and skin cancer. Choose a product that has states "UVA/UVB" protection or has "broad spectrum" protectant.
Waterproof vs Water Resistant
If you are looking for a sunscreen to use while in the water, choose a sunscreen that is "waterproof" or "water resistant"."Waterproof" sunscreen should provide protection in the water for 80 minutes, while "water resistant" provides only 40 minutes of protection.
Visit http://www.lucyrose.biz/organic--natural-suncare-32-c.asp for a great selection of effective natural sun care.
SourceU. S. Food and Drug Administration. Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition Office of Cosmetics and Colors Fact Sheet June 27, 2000; Sunscreens, Tanning Products, and Sun Safety
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)